Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[bdu98196]

In this case if the club had gone without expert inputs everyone would say how its unprofessional etc, but on this occasion it actually looks like they considered the approach most would deem prudent. The gaps outlined in the initial proposal were a identified and addressed, it may be argued that a more robust proposal could have been made, but why burn time and money if it is considered by all that it was adequate based on previous analogues?

[STFU]

At the original meeting it was pointed out that the club had refused to take up the offer of pre-submission advice from the planning dept.

[Yngwie]

28 minutes ago, STFU said:

At the original meeting it was pointed out that the club had refused to take up the offer of pre-submission advice from the planning dept.

What’s your point? ILE and their experts oversaw the application and have been through this process many times. And what do you think the planning department’s pre-submission advice would have been, given that they are totally against it happening?

The club did very well to overcome the hurdles that were put in front of them and to convince enough voters to get it through a quorate vote. 

[bdu98196]

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

 And what do you think the planning department’s pre-submission advice would have been, given that they are totally against it happening?

.......or maybe some in HC just are upset they never got some business trips, golf wknds and fancy meals during the engagement stage

[STFU]

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

What’s your point? ILE and their experts oversaw the application and have been through this process many times. And what do you think the planning department’s pre-submission advice would have been, given that they are totally against it happening?

The club did very well to overcome the hurdles that were put in front of them and to convince enough voters to get it through a quorate vote. 

If the question is 'Could the club have been reasonably expected to have done more?', then for me the answer yes.

I was highlighting the fact that there was an option for the club to have the decision makers look over their submission ahead of time.  This would have allowed them to deal with some of the concerns/objections raised in a more timely fashion and might have even avoided the situation that has now arisen.

From my following of what's happened, nobody with the planning dept has objected to anything (it's not their place to do so).  What they have done is highlighted areas where the proposal does not meet planning requirements.

You'll also get no argument from me that the last planning meeting was a shambles.  Having realised that only 5 of the planning committee were eligible to vote the chair should have not allowed it and immediately referred it to full council for a decision.  By allowing it and then asking for it to be referred, especially given how he voted, the chair has opened himself and his peers up to accusations of foul play.

People keep saying that all concerns and objections were met, but that is also not the case.  The loss of protected green land was not satisfactorily addressed, which is why it was still recommended for rejection.  There were also still a number of conditions to be attached to address remaining concerns on other aspects and it's not certain all of these can/will be met.  Even of it is accepted at full council, there's no guarantee the club gets a pay day.  Conveniently they will have created enough of a shitstorm to then blame it on delays and everyone else messing them around.  As I said at the start of this post, they refused an option which could easily have expedited things.

[STFU]

Also.  We have 3 property developers on our board of directors with many decades of planning experience between them.  Not sure that allows us much room to play the "we needed to rely on external parties" excuse.

[Yngwie]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

If the question is 'Could the club have been reasonably expected to have done more?', then for me the answer yes.

I was highlighting the fact that there was an option for the club to have the decision makers look over their submission ahead of time.  This would have allowed them to deal with some of the concerns/objections raised in a more timely fashion and might have even avoided the situation that has now arisen.

From my following of what's happened, nobody with the planning dept has objected to anything (it's not their place to do so).  What they have done is highlighted areas where the proposal does not meet planning requirements.

You'll also get no argument from me that the last planning meeting was a shambles.  Having realised that only 5 of the planning committee were eligible to vote the chair should have not allowed it and immediately referred it to full council for a decision.  By allowing it and then asking for it to be referred, especially given how he voted, the chair has opened himself and his peers up to accusations of foul play.

People keep saying that all concerns and objections were met, but that is also not the case.  The loss of protected green land was not satisfactorily addressed, which is why it was still recommended for rejection.  There were also still a number of conditions to be attached to address remaining concerns on other aspects and it's not certain all of these can/will be met.  Even of it is accepted at full council, there's no guarantee the club gets a pay day.  Conveniently they will have created enough of a shitstorm to then blame it on delays and everyone else messing them around.  As I said at the start of this post, they refused an option which could easily have expedited things.

It wouldn’t. The fact that the site is on green land means that the planning department's advice would have been that the project is incapable of meeting their requirements for recommending approval - unless you know of a way to build a battery farm without taking up any space!

I’m pretty sure the club knew all along that this would be the biggest challenge and the only way to overcome it would be to stress the wider benefits to the community and to the environment that would result from it going ahead, which is what they did.

[bdu98196]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

Also.  We have 3 property developers on our board of directors with many decades of planning experience between them.  Not sure that allows us much room to play the "we needed to rely on external parties" excuse.

How many of them have built battery storage facilities and previously put together proposals for such ? Its not one size fits all and although apples are fruit, not all fruit are apples.

Edited February 18 by bdu98196

[wilsywilsy]

14 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Unless you know of a way to build a battery farm without taking up any space!

Unless Cameron, Morrions et al can defy physics then obviously it will consume space. The issue is their choice of space. We are supposed to believe that one of the biggest land owners in the area couldn't find a viable brown field site, or, a site that is already marked for development in the IMFDP. As you say, the planners were just following their protocols about this area being protected green space.

14 hours ago, Yngwie said:

I’m pretty sure the club knew all along that this would be the biggest challenge and the only way to overcome it would be to stress the wider benefits to the community and to the environment that would result from it going ahead, which is what they did.

Remind us where the club, or the trust, or whoever it is that really benefits from this project, transparantly and publicly unveiled all this socio-economic data to make their case? Some greenwashing strap lines and a few puff peices about free meals for kids that the trust already provides is no where near good enough IMHO. I am amazed folk are so trusting of this mob. 

 

Edited February 19 by wilsywilsy

[MacOne]

On 2/16/2024 at 2:03 PM, caley1 said:

Stop paying excessive wages to Gardiner would be a start . 

I am genuinely interested. How much does he get paid?

[RiG]

On 2/18/2024 at 9:55 AM, bdu98196 said:

TBF, if the application was 'shoddy' is that really fully at the door of the club, you surely blame the experts ILI given their involvement having provided consultants and support. Sounds like another cheap dig at the board based on bias rather than facts.

Additionally let's not overlook this application was approved was so clearly those with the decision making powers thought more of it than some online experts.

The club and ILI are / were clearly working very much 'hand in glove' on this so I'd be staggered if they didn't have some kind of input into the selection of the planning consultants behind the application. 

Whilst the application was approved it was, again, recommended for refusal because all of the concerns flagged by the planning department hadn't been addressed.

FWIW I hope it is approved as the club desperately needs the money but this could have gone a lot better.

[jed5697]

[STFU]

6 hours ago, MacOne said:

I am genuinely interested. How much does he get paid?

Whatever it is, it's too much.  I wouldn't even have him at the club if he was paying us to be there.

[CmonTheCaley]

I heard that if the battery project is refused then ICT will only have enough money for 12 weeks and then will be bust.

[Pele_Is_God]

Where did you hear that?

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Big Issue ?

[CmonTheCaley]

A shareholder at ICT said theyve tried to get more money off sponsors and the battery project is their last hope and if refused only about 12 weeks of money before the club go bust. Big issue if rejected.

[CmonTheCaley]

Heard aswell that with the battery project ICT get 1 million each year so it would cover expenses

[Robert]

4 minutes ago, CmonTheCaley said:

Heard aswell that with the battery project ICT get 1 million each year so it would cover expenses

That’s not what the Chairman said at the Fans’ Meeting. He said we get a one off seven figure sum but no ongoing revenue stream. 

[old caley girl]

As Robert has already said above we need significant income to clear debt and prove we are a viable business to get accounts passed. Yes can pay FCA fine if late but I'm not sure what the SFA policy is? 

Worrying times. 

[BobbyDazzler]

If these rumours are true then the club truly is in dire straits. Hopefully that's all it is, Rumors.

[bdu98196]

Lucky we released a few high earners then signed all these loans everyones been complaining about and wont be saddled with longterm salaries in 12 weeks time then

 

[Charles Bannerman]

I’m beginning to lose the thread of this Battery Farm issue and there are one or two fundamentals I would like to be able to establish - fundamentals with which, as a club shareholder, I should probably have been made more familiar. In particular, what exactly is the football club’s role in this BF project? Council minutes state that the planning application is in the name of ILI, but yet this is frequently referred to as “Caley Thistle’s battery farm”. Why should ILI want or need the football club to be involved? If they want to be benefactors or sponsors, why don’t they just give the club some cash? Or is there some fundamental benefit for ILI to have a completely unrelated football club associated with an industrial project that’s a million miles away from football?

I’m also curious to know what direct involvement the club would have with the running of the farm if it gets the go ahead? If the answer is “none” then that simply revives the question above - “then why be involved at all ?” If the answer is otherwise then, especially remembering the reputationally damaging demise of the Concert Company, we need to know whether there are any other companies, directly involved or arm’s length, that are being formed here and what are the possible implications for the club? In particular, if the BF were to fail, or to blow up or something, would the club, of which many of us are shareholders, be liable in any way?

The way it currently looks to me is - “ILI, which has commercial relationship with club, want to build battery farm on land owned by individuals with club connections and, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, club stands to benefit big time. However club immediately appears to be up to its neck in the planning process for a scheme that seems to be the only financial messiah in town - to the extent that ICT seem to be fronting this industrial project that’s a million miles away from its core business and for reasons that are far from clear.”

What am I missing?

[Robert]

I’m not going to manage to clarify all of that, but I think (and apologies if I have got this wrong) the club owns (or will if the scheme is given the go ahead) the land that the development is on. If it is approved, the club then sells the land for the seven figure windfall and has no further role.

Effectively Messrs Cameron and Sutherland have gifted ground to the club (or it’s subsidiary) to make this possible.

 

Edited February 20 by Robert

[STFU]

The club are acting as rent-a-stooge.

ILI knew they'd need an angle to get around the use of protected green space and the club is being used to play the "won't someone think of the children" card to add pressure for approval.

Messrs Cameron and Sutherland would have known the same.

Donating a worthless bit of land (without planning consent) to the club that could potentially be turned into a 7 figure windfall makes some sense if they want any chance of getting back money they've loaned.

If successful, it also sets a precedent for development on the rest of the old golf course.